If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

As the Obama administration plots various assaults on gun rights by “executive order” and legislation, proposals described as “very extreme” even by some Democrats, state lawmakers in Wyoming have another idea. Republican legislators are rallying behind nullification legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the state. Lawmakers expect it to pass.

The new bill, H.B. 0104 or the “Firearms Protection Act,” would nullify any new federal infringements on the constitutionally protected gun rights of state residents — who enjoy some of the lowest crime rates while being among the most heavily armed people in America. Unconstitutional federal gun registration schemes, as well as restrictions on semi-automatic guns or standard-capacity magazines, would also be nullified under the legislation.

There are teeth in the proposed law too: Any federal official attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on gun rights passed after January 1 of this year would be charged with a felony. If convicted, criminal officials would be punished by up to five years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. The legislation also authorizes the state attorney general to defend citizens of Wyoming if federal authorities seek prosecutions under unconstitutional gun control rules.

At least eight state representatives and two state senators have already sponsored the legislation. And nationwide, support for similar measures is exploding. "We want to get things ahead of the game," Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the primary sponsor of the bill, told the Huffington Post. "We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming…. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights."

Citing his oath to support and defend the U.S. and state constitutions, state Rep. Kroeker has been a leader in standing against lawless usurpations of power by the federal government. In a previous session, he introduced legislation to increase the use of gold as currency in the state, for example. "I take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Wyoming," Kroeker continued, telling reporters that his constituents and activists nationwide were thrilled by the move. "I believe it is my duty to take that oath seriously."

In a separate interview with the Associated Press, the liberty-minded lawmaker noted that there are “a lot of people” who would seek to take all of Americans’ guns — at least if they could. The only thing restraining them, Kroeker said, is public opposition as well as other lawmakers who take their oaths seriously and are concerned about protecting the people’s unalienable rights.

"We're a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of government," he told the AP. "We've got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime."

If I can explain myself a little better, I know there are some that do not like guns, and that's fine, but you have to understand it is not about you liking or not liking, they are a cog of separation of power, or a device of checking government power, and they most certainly were meant to be that way.

As with all of this you unfortunately get some bad with the good, but that should never be an argument for any further ban.

I hate many religious groups, and Westboro​Baptist reminds me continually that I do not always like the first amendment, but they all are there for a good reason, and should all be protected.

It's a Bill Of Rights thing to me. Those calling for giving up liberties like the 2nd amendment are no different than those who support things like the patriot act, NDAA, warrantless searches and indefinite detention.

The funny thing is, i have heard of no one that has said "we want you to give up your second amendment rights". That is just your interpretation with the placement of certain limits.

We've heard the VP say Obama plans an EO on this issue, hence the reason for a lot of this. A president who thinks he has the authority to limit or infringe the Bill of Rights with an EO, is a dangerous threat to liberty. Banning semi-automatic rifles does mean giving up some of your 2nd amendment rights. No different than if he decided he wanted to limit the 1st, fourth, fifth or sixth amendments.

The funny thing is, i have heard of no one that has said "we want you to give up your second amendment rights". That is just your interpretation with the placement of certain limits.

Do you really think that even if that was their goal, that they would say it that way?? Come on, lets have a real discussion here.

I live in NY, and believe me the threat is real here, and in places like Conn where the legislation was introduced yesterday to outlaw ANYTHING BUT A SINGLE SHOT. In NY the legislation was there for CONFISCATION, NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, etc. Don't believe me google Cuomo confiscation, the bill was introduced by Senator Diaz.

I do not have anything crazy and either of these bills would make illegal EVERYTHING I HAVE, every glock, sig, 1911 etc.

How can I not take that as infringing on my second amendment rights?? Please, I would like an answer to that.

It comes down in my opinion, that if they do not think I need a AR15, then guess what...THEY DON'T NEED IT EITHER.

It would take me a while but i could list all the ridiculous acts by our government that makes me think an AR15 in the hands of a law abiding citizen is a much better choice then giving one to our government, i can't remember the last time a citizen used the profits of the distribution of cocaine to arm the contras while destroying a portion of a city, and thousands of lives, can you?

Ahh, but that is just BS right, the writings of Gary Webb were never proven to be true, right?

Yeah, keep going about your business, nothing to see here...

There should be a freaking Gary Webb day here in America, the balls he had, much better American than just about anybody and that certainly includes almost all of the presidents.

My position on this has always been that I consider prohibitions of these kind to be the lazy man's solution. Yes, you may feel good about it, you may feel that you've accomplished something; but really, how realistic & effective is what you've done?

I smoke cannabis; how much of a hypocrite would I be for me to think that something written somewhere on paper is going to stop me & plenty of others from still engaging in it if there’s a large enough demand for it? Something like 88 out of every 100 homes in America own’s some type of gun (the highest percentage on the planet), how many many of those 88 in 100 own something more powerful than a hunting rifle? Enough to justify the rise of black-market gun cartels who’ll seek to reap the artificially inflated value of these guns caused by prohibition? It’s like trying to go to Ireland and trying to ban liqueur & potatoes; it just might not be a realistic option for a country where gun-culture is as intertwined with the fabric of our society as any other country on the planet.

I know many of you will say apples to oranges when I talk about the alcohol prohibition, & I’ve said this before, but in 1920 when they banned alcohol, rates of consumption rose steadily every single year of it's 13 year prohibition, alcohol related poisonings rose by 600%, there we're more 'speakeasies' in New York during prohibition than there are taverns, & bars in New York today. The prohibition gave rise to a number of criminal empires, most famously Al Capone’s. People held a general contempt for government because they were aware & experiencing that the prohibition had only made things worse in a myriad of ways; until of course they finally lifted the prohibition in 1933 (& actually amended the constitution to do so; which I think any gun laws should have to do as well, but that’s another matter).

I have a suspicion just judging from past events & human behavior, that the banning of a firearm (which a good percentage of American’s already own law-abidingly), could easily result in a rise in demand of said firearm. Said demand will be met by the gun-cartels & private entrepreneurs looking to take advantage in the wake of said prohibition, & I can assure you these people will not be asking for ID & running background checks. The case could be made that this ban would increase the availability of said guns (as you all know, the CT shooter was denied when he tried to purchase firearms, & had to resort to stealing his mother’s). I know that when I was under 21 I had an easier time buying a number of illicit drugs than I did buying alcohol from a licensed establishment.

Can you ever completely stop this sort of tragedy? I don’t know that you can, but do I think a ban of semi-auto’s will really help? I can’t say I do. This has already been stated & isn’t an original idea of mine, but continuing with the theme; if you want to reduce overall gun violence, a great way to start in my opinion would be to end our own prohibition, i.e Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’.

My position on this has always been that I consider prohibitions of these kind to be the lazy man's solution. Yes, you may feel good about it, you may feel that you've accomplished something; but really, how realistic & effective is what you've done?

I smoke cannabis; how much of a hypocrite would I be for me to think that something written somewhere on paper is going to stop me & plenty of others from still engaging in it if there’s a large enough demand for it? Something like 88 out of every 100 homes in America own’s some type of gun (the highest percentage on the planet), how many many of those 88 in 100 own something more powerful than a hunting rifle? Enough to justify the rise of black-market gun cartels who’ll seek to reap the artificially inflated value of these guns caused by prohibition? It’s like trying to go to Ireland and trying to ban liqueur & potatoes; it just might not be a realistic option for a country where gun-culture is as intertwined with the fabric of our society as any other country on the planet.

I know many of you will say apples to oranges when I talk about the alcohol prohibition, & I’ve said this before, but in 1920 when they banned alcohol, rates of consumption rose steadily every single year of it's 13 year prohibition, alcohol related poisonings rose by 600%, there we're more 'speakeasies' in New York during prohibition than there are taverns, & bars in New York today. The prohibition gave rise to a number of criminal empires, most famously Al Capone’s. People held a general contempt for government because they were aware & experiencing that the prohibition had only made things worse in a myriad of ways; until of course they finally lifted the prohibition in 1933 (& actually amended the constitution to do so; which I think any gun laws should have to do as well, but that’s another matter).

I have a suspicion just judging from past events & human behavior, that the banning of a firearm (which a good percentage of American’s already own law-abidingly), could easily result in a rise in demand of said firearm. Said demand will be met by the gun-cartels & private entrepreneurs looking to take advantage in the wake of said prohibition, & I can assure you these people will not be asking for ID & running background checks. The case could be made that this ban would increase the availability of said guns (as you all know, the CT shooter was denied when he tried to purchase firearms, & had to resort to stealing his mother’s). I know that when I was under 21 I had an easier time buying a number of illicit drugs than I did buying alcohol from a licensed establishment.

Can you ever completely stop this sort of tragedy? I don’t know that you can, but do I think a ban of semi-auto’s will really help? I can’t say I do. This has already been stated & isn’t an original idea of mine, but continuing with the theme; if you want to reduce overall gun violence, a great way to start in my opinion would be to end our own prohibition, i.e Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’.